Quantum Physics: Theory of Entanglement

[Allojubrious]

Just as a general survey, who agrees with the theory of Entanglement (where everything is connected & is one)??
Also who agrees that everything is just energy? Like when you go down past the atomic scale and Planck scale you reach just pure energy.
If you could explain why or why not you agree with these topics it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[DrChinese]

Just as a general survey, who agrees with the theory of Entanglement (where everything is connected & is one)??
Also who agrees that everything is just energy? Like when you go down past the atomic scale and Planck scale you reach just pure energy.
If you could explain why or why not you agree with these topics it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Welcome to PhysicsForums, Allojubrious!

I have never heard of the "Theory of Entanglement". Or the "Pure Energy Theory". Do you have references for that?

P.S. Generally, unfounded or personal speculation about quantum physics is not welcome here. Our focus is on that which is generally considered science.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Welcome Allojubrious, if you are asking about Quantum entanglement & Mass–energy equivalence, I’m afraid there’s not much of a 'survey' to do...

Quantum entanglement is a keystone in quantum mechanics, and the Mass–energy equivalence is one of Albert Einstein’s keystones, that you probably already heard of:

Both are well founded in both theory & experiments.

 

[ZapperZ]

Just as a general survey, who agrees with the theory of Entanglement (where everything is connected & is one)??
Also who agrees that everything is just energy? Like when you go down past the atomic scale and Planck scale you reach just pure energy.
If you could explain why or why not you agree with these topics it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Are you sure you have actually understood quantum mechanics well enough to be able to formulate such a question?

Furthermore, this is physics, not a "beauty contest". If it doesn't agreed with experimental observation, it is irrelevant how many people vote for or against something.

BTW, one doesn't need to go down "past the atomic scale and Planck scale" to deal with "pure energy" (whatever that is). Just look at the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics. You have a KE term, and a PE term ONLY in the Lagrangian. Aren't those just "pure energy" already? And this is classical physics! So what exactly are you trying to ask here?

Zz.

 

[Breakout Hit]

P.S. Generally, unfounded or personal speculation about quantum physics is not welcome here. Our focus is on that which is generally considered science.

Is this an official policy of this board? Can you please post a link to this rule?

Were not all generally accepted principles of physics at one time merely someone's personal speculation? How will science move forward if people are discouraged from speculating? I'm amused when people get degrees and just want to rote recite what they learned in 30 year old textbooks... but I'm sure that's not you by any stretch...

 

[SpectraCat]

Is this an official policy of this board? Can you please post a link to this rule?

Were not all generally accepted principles of physics at one time merely someone's personal speculation? How will science move forward if people are discouraged from speculating? I'm amused when people get degrees and just want to rote recite what they learned in 30 year old textbooks... but I'm sure that's not you by any stretch...

Click rules in the title bar .. it explains what Dr. C is referring to. Limited speculations based on published experimental results or calculations are appropriate ... overly speculative posts based on one's own flights of fancy and little else are not.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is this an official policy of this board? Can you please post a link to this rule?

Click rules in the title bar .. it explains what Dr. C is referring to.

...rules which you agreed to when you signed up.

 

[Breakout Hit]

Ok, well let me say this about that.

Fewer people read the rules on a forum when signing up than read the terms and conditions of their visa card and in this regard, mea culpa.

Fast forward to a parallel universe in which I did read the rules... Just kidding! Said rules do effectively explain that the primary purpose of the board is to help students, ie, get good grades, without getting confused. Obviously this objective has little to do with contemplating new ideas which may radically change our view of the world, so I guess I will have to drop my outrageous indignation.

Ahem.

 

[ZapperZ]

Ok, well let me say this about that.

Fewer people read the rules on a forum when signing up than read the terms and conditions of their visa card and in this regard, mea culpa.

I'm sure you have data and enough statistics to back up that statement.

Fast forward to a parallel universe in which I did read the rules... Just kidding! Said rules do effectively explain that the primary purpose of the board is to help students, ie, get good grades, without getting confused. Obviously this objective has little to do with contemplating new ideas which may radically change our view of the world, so I guess I will have to drop my outrageous indignation.

Ahem.

Imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen. There is a difference between speculation done by those who are experts in the field, versus idle speculation done by someone who only has a superficial knowledge of the subject matter.

People seem to forget that to be able to "speculate", one has to know (i) what already works and (ii) what actually doesn't. The former requires that one has a mastery of not only the state of knowledge of something, but also a mastery of ALL the experimental evidence supporting that something. This is because a speculation that can easily be falsified by an EXISTING experimental evidence is an exercise in futility. But one won't know that if one is ignorant of the state of knowledge in that field!

This forum caters to quality over quantity, and in doing so, we try to increase our signal-to-noise ratio. It is what makes us different and respected among the numerous forums available on the 'net.

And btw, we DO discuss research front topics, all based on peer-reviewed journals and legitimate sources. None of these mean that we only discuss established physics.

And yes, our Rules are more than just window dressing.

Zz.

 

[Allojubrious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_entanglement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QcKDvcnZrE&feature=related
http://www.wbabin.net/science/manzelli11.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n11/abs/nphys1100.html

All for Entanglement Theory.
Also if you want more proof of this theory, there is a program known as "What the Bleep do we know?". Buy this program and it explains entanglement theory, as well as Quantum Physics, but it does explain entanglement theory.
So it is real people.
Also Entanglement theory is still slightly new so you may not understand it or choose not to understand it, that is alright. I was just wondering how many of those knew about it yet and agreed with it. I did not ask for any unhelpful remarks, I was just looking for a "yes" or a "no" whether you knew about this theory and agreed with it or not.

Thank you.

 

[DrChinese]

Were not all generally accepted principles of physics at one time merely someone's personal speculation? How will science move forward if people are discouraged from speculating? I'm amused when people get degrees and just want to rote recite what they learned in 30 year old textbooks... but I'm sure that's not you by any stretch...

Welcome to PhysicsForums, Breakout Hit!

"Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited."

You may not be aware of the 1000+ papers written annually on entanglement. There have been 589 so far this year that I am personally aware of.

As to the "virtues" of speculation: as ZapperZ points out, there is a difference between the speculation of experts and the speculation of those who have little knowledge of an area. And the difference is that the experts are aware of the work of others and don't waste precious time speculating when that area has already been firmly addressed. There are open questions in physics, sure, and there are many who are devoting their efforts to solving these. Maybe you will be one of those! But probably not if you aren't aware of the literature. Because you will be spending time going down a lot of blind alleys - unnecessarily.

 

[DrChinese]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_entanglement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QcKDvcnZrE&feature=related
http://www.wbabin.net/science/manzelli11.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n11/abs/nphys1100.html

All for Entanglement Theory.
Also if you want more proof of this theory, there is a program known as "What the Bleep do we know?". Buy this program and it explains entanglement theory, as well as Quantum Physics, but it does explain entanglement theory.
So it is real people.
Also Entanglement theory is still slightly new so you may not understand it or choose not to understand it, that is alright. I was just wondering how many of those knew about it yet and agreed with it. I did not ask for any unhelpful remarks, I was just looking for a "yes" or a "no" whether you knew about this theory and agreed with it or not.

Thank you.

"Entanglement", that new thing you are talking about, was coined to describe a phenomena of quantum theory in 1935. The famous EPR paper of that same year used entanglement to demonstrate an important point in theory which is quite counterintuitive. But there is no separate "theory of entanglement" beyond quantum theory at this point. Entanglement is a special case of normal theory. There are literally thousands of experiments which have been performed indicating the existence of entangled states, so you won't get any argument on that around here. So if you are asking if I agree that entanglement is a physical state, I would say YES.

But it is not generally accepted that everything is entangled. Nor that "everything is energy" although mass and energy are related by a well known formula. So what I was asking you, in effect, is to rephrase your question in a form that can be answered here.

By the way, referencing "What the Bleep..." will probably not earn you a lot of bonus points around here. Some of the science in the film (and yes I have seen it) is laughable - I am thinking of the images in water. The rest is mostly poorly presented or misleading. (And my take is probably one of the nicer ones. )

 

[bapowell]

Also if you want more proof of this theory, there is a program known as "What the Bleep do we know?". Buy this program and it explains entanglement theory, as well as Quantum Physics, but it does explain entanglement theory.

Well, that's all the proof I need. Youtube videos and metaphysical rants like "What the Bleep do we Know?"

 

[ZapperZ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/Theory_of_entanglement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QcKDvcnZrE&feature=related
http://www.wbabin.net/science/manzelli11.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n11/abs/nphys1100.html

All for Entanglement Theory.
Also if you want more proof of this theory, there is a program known as "What the Bleep do we know?". Buy this program and it explains entanglement theory, as well as Quantum Physics, but it does explain entanglement theory.
So it is real people.
Also Entanglement theory is still slightly new so you may not understand it or choose not to understand it, that is alright. I was just wondering how many of those knew about it yet and agreed with it. I did not ask for any unhelpful remarks, I was just looking for a "yes" or a "no" whether you knew about this theory and agreed with it or not.

Thank you.

That movie is crackpottery. Are you aware of this?

The PF Rules that you had AGREED to requires that all "new" ideas be first published in peer-reviewed journal. Just because you can cite some quantum entanglement sources doesn't mean that you've fully understood what it is and are in the position to "teach" us about new theories.

This thread is done.

Zz.